2020 Redistricting in Pennsylvania

[EastAnglianLefty]

Thanks, those are interesting tweaks - I wasn't starting out to maximise Democratic performance (except to the extent you implicitly do so if you unite Harrisburg or Lancaster with their closest suburbs), but if you were trying to do so whilst keeping cleanish lines that's definitely a good starting point.

[palandio]

The final tweak would be in NEPA. Allentown moves from Likely D into competitive territory (not sure if that's a good idea from a D point of view, Browne [R] won his Allentown seat). This is compensated by three seats moving slightly towards the Democrats (Lackawanna, Luzerne, Bethlehem) and another competitive seat being created (Easton and Stroudsburg).



Going by 2012/2016 PVI this would yield the following competitive districts:

13. Scranton D+6 (Clinton +4)
14. Allegheny SE D+5 (Clinton +8)
15. Bucks South D+4 (Clinton +7)
16. Harrisburg D+4 (Clinton +10)
17. Allentown D+3 (Clinton +9)
18. Erie D+3 (Clinton +1)
19. Reading D+2 (Clinton +4)
20. Chester NE D+2 (Clinton +13)
21. Allegheny NE D+2 (Clinton +7)
22. Bethlehem D+1 (Clinton +2)
23. Chester SW EVEN (Clinton +6)
24. Allegheny NW EVEN (Clinton +6)
25. Allegheny SW EVEN (Clinton +5)
26. Lancaster R+1 (Clinton +2)
27. Easton and Stroudsburg R+2 (Trump +6)
28. Bucks Central R+2 (Clinton +3)
29. Wilkes-Barre R+4 (Trump +17)

The main takeaway for me is the following: With 50 seats it is easier to draw a nice-looking map that gives Democrats even chances than with 17 seats. The main reason seems to be that the SEPA and Allegheny areas can be kept homogeneously D, while enough compact competitive districts can be created outside SEPA and Allegheny that would otherwise drown in the R sea.

[SevenEleven]

[lfromnj]

LOL ^ what a hack map.
That split of Berks/Pittsburgh and Alleghany is a meme.

Literally everyone but you agrees that there should be a SW westmoreland/Fayette/Greene/Washington district with a few thousand added from the next county.

[SevenEleven]

LOL ^ what a hack map.
That split of Berks/Pittsburgh and Alleghany is a meme.

Literally everyone but you agrees that there should be a SW westmoreland/Fayette/Greene/Washington district with 20k added.

Pittsburgh is split by the river except for about 40k of pop needed.

Berks is split so Chester and Delaware can stay whole.

[SevenEleven]

Look, Berks is whole!!

[lfromnj]

Have you ever actually made a fair map in good faith?

[SevenEleven]

Have you ever actually made a fair map in good faith?

What are you talking about?

[lfromnj]

Have you ever actually made a fair map in good faith?

What are you talking about?

Dude every single one of your fair maps are D gerrymanders, stop trying to deny it.

[S019]

Have you ever actually made a fair map in good faith?

What are you talking about?

Dude every single one of your fair maps are D gerrymanders, stop trying to deny it.

A gerrymander would actually unpack the Philadelphia suburbs, and also, if you want a D gerrymander, Beaver+Pittsburgh, works far better than SWPA+Pittsburgh, and also if it is allowed (probably is), the majority minority seat in North Philadelphia would be eliminated, freeing up lots of blue precincts. Also IdahoConservative posts Republican gerrymanders and calls them fair maps in threads, but no one complains there. Anyways, splitting Berks is needed, because of the way SEPA works out, but I like Sev's second map far more. One last thing, a D gerrymander would pair Abington and the surrounding areas with Bucks as that gets the seat to around Clinton+7 without ugly lines.

[SevenEleven]

Have you ever actually made a fair map in good faith?

What are you talking about?

Dude every single one of your fair maps are D gerrymanders, stop trying to deny it.

Map is literally 8-8-1 in a state that's always nearly tied. How is that a D gerrymander or unfair?

This is what I would do if it were up to me:

I kept Berks whole here just for you, too.

[palandio]

If you want two districts in the Pittsburgh area with a D PVI (2012/2016 numbers), this can be done without splitting the city itself. The green district is D+6.97, the orange one is D+0.24.
(I have not tried with Pittsburgh+Beaver county yet, maybe this will work even better?)

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Looks like a perfect court map to me

[Skill and Chance]

Have you ever actually made a fair map in good faith?

What are you talking about?

Dude every single one of your fair maps are D gerrymanders, stop trying to deny it.

This particular court is overwhelmingly likely to draw a soft D gerrymander (in fact they already did for 2018-20), so it's appropriate for PA specifically.

[S019]

Have you ever actually made a fair map in good faith?

What are you talking about?

Dude every single one of your fair maps are D gerrymanders, stop trying to deny it.

This particular court is overwhelmingly likely to draw a soft D gerrymander (in fact they already did for 2018-20), so it's appropriate for PA specifically.

This is true, to me the biggest question is what they do with PA-01, because you can make it much more D by pairing it with lower Montgomery, but that might be too blatant of a gerrymander.

[Skill and Chance]

Have you ever actually made a fair map in good faith?

What are you talking about?

Dude every single one of your fair maps are D gerrymanders, stop trying to deny it.

This particular court is overwhelmingly likely to draw a soft D gerrymander (in fact they already did for 2018-20), so it's appropriate for PA specifically.

This is true, to me the biggest question is what they do with PA-01, because you can make it much more D by pairing it with lower Montgomery, but that might be too blatant of a gerrymander.

I'm wondering more about the non-Philly CDs.  It's clear there's enough room in Allegheny to keep Lamb reasonably safe.  Will the Harrisburg seat get more Dem or more GOP?  Is one of Cartwright or Wild stuck with an impossible district no matter what?

[Mr.Phips]

Have you ever actually made a fair map in good faith?

What are you talking about?

Dude every single one of your fair maps are D gerrymanders, stop trying to deny it.

This particular court is overwhelmingly likely to draw a soft D gerrymander (in fact they already did for 2018-20), so it's appropriate for PA specifically.

This is true, to me the biggest question is what they do with PA-01, because you can make it much more D by pairing it with lower Montgomery, but that might be too blatant of a gerrymander.

One incumbent protection option is to make PA-01 redder by giving PA-07 a tendril into the most Dem areas of Bucks county while giving PA-01 Republican areas of PA-07.  Its ugly, but it would protect both incumbents.

[Sestak]

Ok the montco lengthwise split like that is a tad ridiculous. Also given the types of criteria the court has put out re counties, doesn't strike me as something they'd do lol.

[S019]

Have you ever actually made a fair map in good faith?

What are you talking about?

Dude every single one of your fair maps are D gerrymanders, stop trying to deny it.

This particular court is overwhelmingly likely to draw a soft D gerrymander (in fact they already did for 2018-20), so it's appropriate for PA specifically.

This is true, to me the biggest question is what they do with PA-01, because you can make it much more D by pairing it with lower Montgomery, but that might be too blatant of a gerrymander.

One incumbent protection option is to make PA-01 redder by giving PA-07 a tendril into the most Dem areas of Bucks county while giving PA-01 Republican areas of PA-07.  Its ugly, but it would protect both incumbents.

Splitting Bucks is a no, Bucks has stayed whole since like the 1950's, if not earlier, iirc

[muon2]

Have you ever actually made a fair map in good faith?

What are you talking about?

Dude every single one of your fair maps are D gerrymanders, stop trying to deny it.

This particular court is overwhelmingly likely to draw a soft D gerrymander (in fact they already did for 2018-20), so it's appropriate for PA specifically.

This court may favor a soft D gerrymander, but they won't support more county chops then necessary. That was one of the clear directives to their special master. To draw 17 CDs one should only need 16 chops, though an approved plan might have 17 chops if it's easier to get population equality that way.

[SevenEleven]

The criticism of my Berks split was absurd given its similarity to the current court drawn map.

[SevenEleven]

Ok the montco lengthwise split like that is a tad ridiculous. Also given the types of criteria the court has put out re counties, doesn't strike me as something they'd do lol.

That was an example of a D gerrymander but following road corridors.

[lfromnj]

^ All of the maps you draw are D gerrymanders.

[SevenEleven]

^ All of the maps you draw are D gerrymanders.

8-8-1 is not a D gerrymander.

[lfromnj]

Oh so now you care about partisan equity?

Where was that in CA?